This article shows how restaurants are now losing money due to more women doing what women have traditionally done in pre-liberal times: manage their homes!

According to the article, more women are staying at home and cooking for their families, which has in turn caused restaurants to lose revenue. No offense to anyone that works within the restaurant industry, but let’s face it, this industry, along with many other modern industries (see industrial revolution) has created a narcissistic culture and ethic in America (in particular) that leads to nothing but schism within the family and the Church.

Not only is the American economy based on this “capitalistic” framework, but much of the Christian ministry - especially within Evangelicalism - is built on this same framework. The essence of this model includes the basic tendency and motive to capitalize on the overall desires and weaknesses of the people! Yet the ethic of Christ involves selfless and sacrificial love for one another, as Christ clearly demonstrated to us in His lifetime. This means that one may actually need to repent and serve those that Christ calls us to serve, rather than fleeing from the difficult service in order to build our own, more monetarily gainful, business or ministry.

Western economics and ministry is simply out of control! Take, for instance, much of the American youth ministry. Because parents are too wrapped up in hedonism, insisting on living a life of materialism and social acceptance, thus fleeing from the traditional model/ethic of the family, they ignore training their children in the Lord properly. The child is then given over to the youth ministry in hopes of spiritual conversion. If the Church would simply instruct the parents on proper Christian ethics of the family, the child would not need or even want to be a part of ministries outside the home and the Church (the youth pastor is not an office of the Church according to the Scriptures). Ministries such as the youth ministry should be for the children that have no parents or whom have non-Christian parents - the legal, as well as spiritual orphans. To capitalize on the sins of the parents is very sinful; ”growing” the ministry to accommodate the children that are not orphans, thus ultimately stealing them from their God-given mentors - their parents, all the while neglecting the true orphans.

The overcorrection to modern capitalism would be the pursuit of idealistic notions (idealism - the creation and belief of ideals that are impossible to manage). The Puritans fell into this shortly after they settled in America. Imposing laws and theologies that had never been fully embraced in all of history, the Puritans believed that God had called them to be the new Jerusalem. They were wrong! God does not want an overnight make-shift Jerusalem erected. God simply wants us to do what is right and just within our own lives, and teach those same principles to our pupils. If our pupils do not want to learn and live the ways of Christ, then they have chosen to live as peasants (there is nothing sinful about a society with poor people. When Christ says to give to the poor, He is certainly not commanding us to instantly make them wealthy). Typically, the idealist would want both classes of peasant and elitist to become abolished, and this is generally called liberalism. Liberalism is not the answer to capitalism! The answer to secular capitalism is… well, I am not sure there is a proper “ism” to place here, at least not one that would be understood by most Christians. Though, I can say this: The “biblical” model of Christian economy is not found in one particular frame of history, but likely, a combination of historical frames, coupled with a combination of historical theologies.

Something that I have noticed within many Protestant circles is that theological discussion - especially in the “Bible only” camps - can sometimes actually be an hindrance for the Christian’s sanctification. Yes, that’s right! What happens is that the groups of Christians thrive on reinventing the wheel, becoming preoccupied with “wrestling with the Scriptures,” and such, rather than living and believing the Scriptures. It becomes a sort of legalism, where one feels sanctified because they are “in the Word.” I hate to say this, but you are not in the Word just because you are in a wrestling match with the Bible. The Word is the logos, the living being of Christ that involves the spiritual formation of souls. The Word is not God reduced to the English or even Greek and Hebrew vocabulary. The Word of God is His revelatory will for mankind found within the Scriptures, but as they illuminate themselves through the authority of His Church, not as they illuminate themselves through Nelson Printing Press, or any other schmo that takes his own authority to become the standard-bearer. 

The Word of God is what the Bible is saying and doing, not just what the Bible said or once said. Some theology-buffs may now be howling outside their windows through the authority of what their seminary teacher taught them about hermeneutics, so please allow me to qualify: Certainly there is a place for what is called The Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic, but what happens is that this form of studying the Bible is often not properly embraced, even by seminarians, and one suddenly becomes a theologian overnight from proof-texting verses; then goes to his friends and spreads this germ, and born is a Bible study.

This sounds like your typical overzealous Baptist/Evangelical, right? Yes, but it is within the higher churches, also, just on a more sophisticated level. What happens here is that rather than wrestling with Bible verses, they wrestle with theological positions that have not yet blossomed. They create false dichotomies of argumentation by splitting a traditional doctrine in two and then pitching them against each other. One perfect example of this would be the “Law and Gospel” debate; as if the Gospel does not include Law and the Law does not include Gospel. Or how about this one: The Five Points of Calvinism; not that the Five Points are heretical, but the five points cannot be understood very easily outside the context of many other biblical concepts; and after one understands these concepts, the Five Points begin to look like unreasonable dichotomies. Yes, that is right. When something so powerful like the Gospel is reduced to five propositions, mass friction is bound to happen, resulting in explosion.

If you are looking for dogma, as you should be, then look no further than the ancient creeds, as well as the catechism and Canons of the Church, which will lead you to all sorts of ethical and soteriological standards, including standards of worship. But, if you are not looking for dogma, and you simply want to feel like a theologian, then there is always a divisive debate-circle or modern/independent church,  just waiting to suck you in.

I have heard some good arguments coming from different conservatives, regarding various candidates. I am hearing that Ron Paul’s “constitutional” stance outweighs his various ethical weaknesses. I have also heard the argument for Romney being strong in economical areas. I have heard nothing very enlightening about McCain.

I voted for Rev. Mike Huckabee. I did this not because he is the most intelligent of all the candidates, but because I think he is the most humble. Christ says that He pours His grace on whom? the humble. How do I know Rev. Huckabee is humble? Well, I do not know him personally, but I do know that he is more theologically grounded than ANY of the other candidates. Also, I do not think that he is somehow out of step for supporting McCain and making himself available as his running-mate. The running-mate can submit to a “lesser” politician,  and be ethical, as long as it is the running-mate’s intention to do all he can with the position God has given him.

O God, the foundation of wisdom, whose statutes are good and gracious and whose law is truth; We beseech thee so to guide and bless the Legislature of this State, that it may ordain for our governance only such things as please thee, to the glory of they Name and the welfare of the people; through Jesus Christ, the Son,  our Lord. Amen.  - 1928 Book of Common Prayer

This is an amazing story! A true test of  “pro-life.” This young lady chose to allow the providence of God to guide her life, when having to choose between certain and painful death for her baby or possible death for herself. She delivered the baby and died shortly after.

This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:12-13

Our Church, St. Andrews REC, participated in a Pro-Life rally this last Sunday. This is my son, Christian, doing his part. Below, you can see part of the crowd. I’m standing in the back (black and grey with hand on waist), behind the RC priest with the hat (I wonder if the hat is significant to some sort of interesting Order;) Special thanks to my CREC friend, Scott Bennion for the pics.

To obtain a humble and contrite heart one must lean on the external of humility itself. What this means is that doctrinal study and even prayer itself are not adequate measures, for these two matters are meant to lead to a greater plain within our lives: sacrifice. In order to be humble we must first be humbled. Metroplotitan Nafpaktos Hierotheos in Orthodox Psychotherapy (p. 180-189) quotes the Fathers :

Heartache is necessary because even the strictest ascetic life is bogus without it…Many people have worked and continue to work without pain, but because of its absence they are strangers to purity and out of communion with the Holy Spirit, because they have turned aside from the severity of suffering…’We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God’ (Acts 14, 220).’…Drench your cheeks with the weeping of your eyes…St. Neilos the Ascetic teaches us to pray first for the gift of tears. Likewise if we pray with tears all we ask will be heard…The Fathers teach that we are cleansed from the passions “either through voluntary sufferings of through involuntary misfortunes…When the voluntary ones come first, involuntary ones do not follow.”

The Lenten season is approaching us! It would be an honoring thing to begin to pray about just what we will be “giving up” for Lent. This is not some sort of sacrifice offered to God, rather it is a sacrifice offered unto our souls; a fast, in order that we may obtain a contrite heart.

Do you reward yourself with much luxury? Do you do it even in the name of God (using His name in vain) by claiming that this luxury that you have bought is for your family or ministry - ultimately blessing yourself? I pray that we would examine ourselves as to whether or not we are living our lives according to how St. Paul has instructed us: by presenting our bodies as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1). Through the pain of fasting we can find ourselves (through God, of course) and thus this pain eventually turns to joy (Psalm 126:6).  Do you have no pain? If not, obtain it! Do you have pain? If so, rejoice in it! If we cannot find pain to purify us, God will certainly find some for us, and this is not likely to be a pleasant surprise. In fact, it will be gut-wrenching as we not only repent of our uncleanliness but also our unwillingness to become sacrificial.

As we become sacrificial in our lives, we ultimately become “unsacrificial” in our attitudes. In other words, what we formally called sacrifice we will now call pleasure. The sacrifice is no longer sacrifice to our souls and thus we grow deeper in our sacrificial relationship with God. We are now strengthened to go deeper in battle without being maimed; or, as Jacob experienced: hip out of joint!

This leads us to the doctrine of penance, a post for another day.

I’m wondering why we have not, as a Body, continued the work that God first began with the abolitionists. Could we be so puffed up in the repentance of our own misconduct that we have become blinded to the call of the Great Commission? From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness,

From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness,

Good Lord Deliver Us

Taken from the Litany of The Book of Common Prayer

I just finished watching the movie Amazing Grace. It was quite good, although I did get a little sleepy at times. There was a tremendous amount of dialog and next to no scenes of just how the slave-traders treated the slaves or what they went through. I suppose this gentle quality needs to be restored amongst Hollywood, though. Psychological/spiritual impact can hit us in a number of ways, and that it does in this movie. The movie does elude to the Church and even shows one scene of a pastor preaching on the issue of slave-trade, but the travesty of the African slave-trade certainly could have been emphasized more.

It’s hard to even tell that Wilberforce was an Anglican, unless one knows a thing or two about Anglicanism and her history…it just was not emphasized. Anglicanism, not only has a history of rich Worship, but it also has a history of rich ethics. Amazing Grace does a fine job on demonstrating this!  So…okay, it did a great job in demonstrating Anglicanism, but I was hoping the flag would be waiving high, that’s all. Rent or buy this movie and never forget that the American Union was not the first to notice the brutality of African slave-trade.

I’m reading Rolland Alland’s The Spontaneous Expansion of The Church, and I have come across a section (Chapter 5, The Christian Standard of Morals) that I feel is not handled well by him. He says:

Neither in the Gospel nor in any other part of the new Testament is any code of law laid down. That standard which we so often call the Christian standard of morals, simply does not exist in the New Testament. There is in the New Testament no no standard of morals in the sense of a standard external and capable of legal expression, so that we can say that a man who reaches this standard is a Christian, and that a man who fails to reach this standard is not a Christian…”

First of all, we know that Christ says that not one jot nor tittle of the Law will pass away till all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). There is a moral standard in the New Testament! St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 that those who practice sin such as homosexuality and even covetousness will not enter the kingdom. According to these two passages of Scripture, there is a standard to which we can rightfully judge. ALTHOUGH, we must infuse Christological philosophy when dealing with those whom we expect to be obedient to these laws. So it is not that the New Testament does not lay down a standard of morality, it is that the New Testament lays down a new system of morality. Sanctification takes time. But if while taking advantage of this time the sinner begins spreading his sin around the Church, then the sinner must be dealt with either ecclesiastically or even judicially.

The two extremes of either allowing people to sin their tails off or coming down on them before they ever receive a chance to transform must be avoided. Christ is both gracious and righteous. And His Law is everlasting.

This is what happens when the Church does not lead, or at least insist on having jurisdiction over the medical field - the ministry that we first initiated. Doctors become murderers and pretend to be counselors and judges. What we can do at this point in our post-Christendom society is beyond my knowledge, but I know we can start with the basics by simply laying the problem out in the open and praying for qualified men and women to take a hold of callings within the medical field.

Some Christians are urging others to pull their children out of public school due to the new pro-homosexual bill that our hero Arnold Schwarzenegger just passed. The dividing line between the wheat and the chaff is becoming more and more evident as proclaimed Christians will be showing just whose side they are on.

I have often wondered just why we, as Christians, are constantly attempting to create a legalistic America. You will often find arguments as to why certain laws are so wrong and how public schools are so corrupt etc.,  but you will seldom hear of the true Gospel remedy; that is, that the State needs to submit to the Gospel and those that God has given the Gospel to: The Church!

Ethics without Christ is legalism, plain and simple! We have no right telling the State (the State that we do not want to run) to live by our ethics, it’s ludicrous.  Our State and educational system was given over, piece by piece, ever since the Revolutionary War. There are no longer any laws directly requiring the State and all her entities to submit to Christian ethics. If, for instance, the State wants to abort children, we certainly have the right to voice our opinion, but we really do not have the right to use the authority of the Scriptures until we make it clear that the Scriptures and the Church (the Church is the only body that can teach the Scriptures) have authority over the State in spiritual/ethical matters.

So next time you get excited over what Hilary Clinton is saying or what Bush did not do right, think of whether or not we have even earned the right to be angry. It’s almost as if we want both to eat and keep our cake. All throughout history, families have been martyred for the sake of evangelizing their State, but today we would like to skip the persecution and get right to the prize.  How arrogant is this, to claim we deserve such a prize? It is likely, at this point, after opening our borders wide to other religions and cultures (we did this not only in the early days of the Revolution, but also in 1965 through Pres. Johnson), that we are going to have to suffer in order to evangelize the State. May we prepare our children!

I’m glad to see that the Americans are finally fed up with the birthday thing; not that birthdays are sinful in themselves, but the way we have been celebrating them is certainly not edifying for the child nor for those who surround him/her.

Expensive children’s birthday parties pose a number of problems:

1. If one cannot afford a gift they may feel a bit ashamed. The host will almost never come down on that person, but the truth of the matter is that the person is put in the spotlight almost by default.

2. Many children become completely spoiled and arrogant when receiving the gifts.

3. The logic of the party is pretty backwards and even man-centered. Where is God in all of this? And what does this celebration teach the child? One may say that it teaches thankfulness to a child but… well, I really doubt it does.

4. What child needs an abundance of toys every single year?

5. The parties cause various types of stress on the adults. If we want to get together, then let’s be mature about this desire and just say “let’s get together.”

So there you have it, a general Christian ethic on birthdays; hope you are not upset.

Many are offended if a standard of dress for women is presented to them. So I will instead refer AnglicanThought readers to the standard of the world.

This article is written from a mainline journalist and is a mild example of the motives of our society for dress. The article mentions how each type (shape) of woman can show off her “curves.” Now, let’s not be naive, the reason they want to “show their curves” is not to attract other ladies, it’s to attract men. Some may say that they are not trying to “attract”  anyone but they just like to “show their curves,” as if the human motive is neutral and without will. The popular Unitarian society has revealed much of its motive in this article! With that said, can anyone tell me why matured Christian ladies would want to follow this ethic?  What would St. Paul say if one of these contemporary Christian ladies, dressed in the latest wrap-around jeans, showed up in one of his services (shock factor of time travel set aside ;) )?  I don’t think this is one of those ethics that seperates the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean. But the honest fact is that being modest is godly. No?

And if you choose to — if you believe in the Almighty, you can — you’re equally an American. If you’re a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. Interview on Larry King Live (CNN), Aug. 15, 2004

I heard Bush say something similar to this on the radio today. I think what he and many Americans do not understand is that religions, such as Islam, worship in such a way that drives them to hate infidels. They do not have an evangelistic message of liberation, but rather they have an existential message of servant-hood which teaches the complete annihilation of infidels.

 In Islam, there is no grace, but rather there is only submission or death. In Christendom there is grace, and if one does not desire to come to Christ then they are not forced to come. Although,  this does not mean that this infidel can begin to create their own heretical movement to destroy God’s Church. Or does it?

Do we tolerate those who desire us to follow Islamic or other cultic ethics within our communities? At what point do we restrain this person or peoples? Doctrinal and ethical neutrality is impossible, and so if God has given us a homeland to be good stewards of, then what ethical system do we institute? Is there such an ethical system that America is striving for that could be even marginally inclusive to other faiths? Is God pleased with this pursuit? If not, what would He have us do?

On September 11th, 2001, when Islam struck America, I was driving in my Honda CR-V on the way to Twin Towers. That’s right, “Twin Towers.” Only,  this was Twin Towers of Los Angeles, the county jail and mental hospital. I was working as a Protestant Chaplain there. When I heard the news, I turned around to head back home to be with my family. I will never forget the faces of the people around me while I was driving in the traffic - grief-struck!

How much of Islam will we tolerate? That’s my question. How naive will we be by believing there are “peaceful” Muslims? Hey, some Muslims feel they are called to battle with sword and some with the pen! If our military goes to battle with Osama will you raise your voice in opposition? No, of course not. Likewise, the so-called peaceful Muslims will never come up against the  radical Muslims. Why? Because they would be disobedient to the Koran. I’m too tired right now to look up the Koran verse, but it says Jihad is fought in many different ways, besides through the sword. We need to oppose every form of Islam with the Gospel of Christ (this includes Christ’s Law, does it not?). It will take a new and radical generation to voice this truth. Hopefully you are or can become a part of it.

You know it is bad when corporations are becoming more godly than many churches!

I think that American Christians would care much more about issues such as illegal immigration, abortion, poverty, discrimination, etc. if we simply did not have the luxuries that we currently have. We cannot seem to handle them! It can be a consuming venture to decide which flat-screen to purchase or which car dealer to talk into letting us trade-in on our current vehicle. Things such as TVs and cars are not evil in themselves, but my point is that America has certainly become a consumer society. We revolve around our upgrades and general luxuries, all while the Church and the state are being taken by radical scum-cultures and liberal activists.

John Calvin says this:

“Yea, prosperity not only intoxicates many, as to carry them beyond all bounds in their mirth, but it also engenders insolence, which makes them proudly rise up and break forth against God. Accordingly there is scarcely is a hundredth part of those who enjoy in abundance the good things of God, who keep themselves in his fear, and live in the exercise of humility and temperance, which would be so becoming.”

Not many, as Calvin says, can live in rich abundance and still remain humble. Not only can material gain cause us to commit covetousness and idolatry with the items themselves, but there is also the very ethic that God calls us to redeem our time. There simply is not enough time in the day for us to focus on constant material upgrade and adrenaline-filled events if one is sold as a slave to Christ!

Our modern society draws us more toward the ego, regarding what is available for enjoyment, than it does draw us toward humility and peace. We can simply look at modern architecture to see the lack of hospitable and “heavenly” design. Homes and buildings now are built to accommodate our toys rather than our friends and neighbors, and they say nothing about who God is in the way they are shaped and designed.  

Ever wonder how certain unqualified and divisive men sneak past our radar just to destroy our communities? In Colossians Chapter 2, St. Paul warns us of those who demonstrate false humility! False humility is the subversive tactic of the wolves as they display mere clothing of a shepherd. It’s not always easy to identify and can turn into an extremely arrogant accusation if not carefully sought. Judas, when he kissed Jesus, is an obvious example of false humility. But what about those that put the “kiss of Judas” into words and actions in today’s society?

The snare of false humility is its very proclamation of humility. I once visited a conference of a newly formed denomination that claimed to have Reformed essentials, where the leader of this organization continually (and I was told that this was a regular speech of his) claimed that he was an “arrogant man.”  My buddy and I saw this as a demonstration of false humility! Why? Well, this particular man proclaimed a number of accusations against the historic Church that he felt were just reasons for beginning his new venture, yet these accusations were autonomously founded. This leader wanted no accountability from any of the Reformed or other historic churches. He claimed that they had essentials in the faith so wrong, that it was necessary for him to begin his own venture completely apart from any of the historic positions. He began a new form of Church polity (with him as the head, of course) and a new form of doctrine that was inclusive to the more modern elements of the Church.

Not only was this man autonomous in his ecclesiology, he was autonomous in his family ethics. He continually preached a high standard of ethics for the family, yet he was not adhering to this same standard; flying from conference to conference to speak and counsel, while his teenage son spiraled into a form of depression. Therefore, in order to cover his guilt, he would come out and speak directly against it. In the subject of hermeneutics, we call this “preaching your own convictions.” This can happen to any pastor; he, being convicted of a certain sin, rather than repent of the sin by changing his ways, vents his frustration over the pulpit. In judicial terms this can be called abuse of power under the color of authority. The leader, knowing that his flock will interpret his ethical speech as a command to them, turns his own convictions inside-out by using the pulpit as a scapegoat.

In stricter terms, we can see false humility in ourselves or peers when there is an obvious sin that needs to repented of, such as some sort of false accusation or insult against someone. And instead of true repentance & reconcilation to the person, a statement such as, “I’m sorry if I offended you,” is made. The word suspect here is “IF.” We are saying that we are still not sure if we did wrong! The other word is  “offended.” In modern Christian circles, being offended often means that the person is weak in that area and just cannot grow to the point of “accepting this great liberation that we just expressed.” So to offend a weaker Christian is bad, but not entirely unethical since it is not a matter of unethical speech as it is a matter of whether or not the weaker Christian can stomach the comment.

False humility is often used as a sort of partial repentance. It gives us the ability to feel like we have given up illegal weapons but within our basement is an entire arsenal of the latest terrorist paraphernalia with actual names of future victims written on them. When this individual confesses - especially publicly -  to a particular sliver of his problem or just denounces that particular type of ungodly behaviour, it becomes difficult to prosecute them when they become a complete and obvious danger to the Church or society. To obtain a warrant - to use the judicial language again -  can be almost impossible because, after all, we all know that this man is not like that. He publicly denounces this kind of behaviour constantly.

This is why Paul warns us about leaders who carry this tactic of false humility. It is deception and hypocrisy, and is clearly the ploy of the devil. May we all be aware of this sin in our own lives and may we be watchful of it in our leaders. And with that last sentence said, may we not be overzealous and arrogant when watching for false humility in leadership, lest we falsely accuse and become divisive ourselves.

The term “legalism” is very much abused within the Church today. Many throw this term out when they feel that they cannot reach a standard that has been presented to them by church authority. Others use it when Christian peers are living a godlier life than they are and the would-be accuser is unable to reach their standard. Christians begin to create their own standard of ethics based on the way they are currently living rather than on the way the church has taught ethics over the centuries, and then pull out there “priesthood of all believers” pass.

In future posts, I will expound on legalism in more stricter terms (no pun intended), but for now I would like to bring the face of it to the table. When can a Christian call another’s actions “legalistic?” It happens every day, I’m sure. One man calls another a legalist simply because he feels the man is unnecessarily adhering to certain ethics. But what the accuser does not recognize is that there is an even looser Christian that is accusing him of being a legalist.

As an example of a certain ethic that causes tension within the Church, let us turn to Paul when he says that women should dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9). One would think that this would mean that a woman should not, especially in the worship assembly where we are doing everything to focus on the Living God, dress sexy. This would be contrary to what Paul was commanding! So in this case, how do we determine what is immodest (sexy)? Where do we draw the standard? Or can we? I believe we can, but it must be the pastor who is in submission to his authority, the Bishop, that does this. We simply cannot have variable standards floating around the congregations by anyone who is eager to claim authority. This is why the pastor has a stricter judgement, because he sets the biblical standard by gently convincing the congregation of Christ’s sanctifying truth! This does not mean that no one else can know what a biblical ethic is, it simply means that not just anyone can induce the ethics. This includes those that are pretending to be Bishops over the Internet, calling certain pastors “legalists” for teaching their congregations ethics that are foreign to many of the looser Christians.

If there are loose ethics in a church, then the church will not be unified, unless they unify under those loose ethics, which then turns them away from Christ. Christ says that “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And if you are testing the pastor to see how far you can push your loose standard, then you will reap the consequences. It’s as simple as that! But on the other side of the token, someone that condemns every Christian that does not see the Law as they do and thus provokes the pastor for not “laying down the gavel” will also, in my opinion, reap.

Ethics in today’s society and church are very complicated and not easy to induce with both boldness and grace. Many lean to one side or the other and thus become either to loose or to stern. And many times the stern ones insist on conformity regardless of whether or not their pupils are ready for that particular ethic. This, I think, can be deemed as “legalistic” in some cases. But there are times where a person must obey even if their heart is not in it yet. I used to teach this to x-cons; that they were to refrain from stealing, for instance, even if they thought they were justified in doing it. The heart change will come later!